Vote Swaps Revamped for 2004

Share

Vote Swaps Revamped for 2004

Supporters of third-party candidates, be they save-the-spotted-owl Greens or trim-the-government Libertarians, are finding themselves in a similar quandary this presidential election year.

They dislike both George W. Bush and John Kerry, but not equally. The dilemma: By casting a vote for a third candidate, they fear they'll inadvertently boost the campaign of the major-party candidate they despise most.

Help is on the way. While their methodologies may not be legal or even tested, a number of websites are cropping up to allow backers of presidential wannabes from alternate parties to vote their conscience without draining support for a preferred major-party candidate in a crucial swing state.

So-called vote-swapping, or vote-pairing, efforts under way for November's election largely mimic those that cropped up in 2000 to minimize the impact of Ralph Nader on Democrat Al Gore's chances of victory. Through such websites as like VoteSwap2000, Votexchange2000 and Nadertrader.org, Nader supporters in swing states agreed to vote for Gore if a voter in a solidly pro-Bush or pro-Gore state agreed to vote for Nader in their stead.

This year, with fewer votes expected to go to Nader, some want to make it more comfortable for voters of all stripes to withhold support for the Democratic and Republican candidates.

"A popular liberal chant is 'Anybody but Bush,' which is telling you that you should vote for Kerry regardless of whether or not you really like him, simply to keep Bush out of office," said Abel Dean, who is planning a website called the Triangle Vote Movement for third-party voters. "(We) would fully allow voters to vote for who they really support – which is what the electoral system should be about."

While the Triangle Vote Movement has not yet launched its website, the plan laid out in a discussion list is to match up supporters of third parties on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Ideally, the site would connect backers of liberal third parties, such as the Greens or the Light Party, with supporters of conservative-leaning ones like the Constitution Party or the Prohibition Party in the same state. Since a liberal third-party supporter would be more likely to vote Democratic and a conservative one more likely to vote Republican, the theory goes, neither Bush nor Kerry would be harmed if both voters back someone else.

Carnet Williams, who ran the website winwincampaign in 2000 as a forum for Nader backers in swing states to pledge votes to Gore, is also planning a new vote-swapping campaign this year.

When the pairing service launches on Sept. 20, voters will be able to enter their state and voting preference. They will then be told whether they are voting in a swing state, where the race is close, or a secure state, where wide margins of victory are predicted for either Bush or Kerry.

Kerry supporters in secure states can then pledge to vote for Nader or David Cobb, the Green Party nominee. Nader or Cobb supporters from swing states, meanwhile, can pledge to vote for Kerry. Voters will be paired by e-mail.

VotePair says its service is legal, comparing it to a common practice among members of Congress who agree to "trade" their votes on bills in exchange for other members' support of their own legislation. Among state regulators and election officials, however, there is little consensus as to whether vote swapping is legal.

Before the 2000 election, California Secretary of State Bill Jones ordered the vote-trading site Votexchange2000.com shut down, claiming it violated state election code by partaking in the brokering of votes. The operator of Votexchange2000 subsequently sued, and a federal appeals judge in Pasadena ruled last year that the website could seek damages from the state.

Officials in Florida, Arizona, Minnesota and Wisconsin also declared the practice of vote swapping illegal. Regulators in Maine and Nebraska, meanwhile, came to the opposite conclusion.

Whether it's legal or not, George Getz, communications director for the Libertarian Party, thinks vote swapping is a terrible idea.

"People who are voting for third parties are disgruntled with the other two, and the only way to make those parties change is to make them feel a little bit of pain," he said.

In Getz's view, the whole point of voting is to make an impact. By participating in swapping efforts aimed at keeping their vote from affecting the outcome of the election, he said, voters aren't taking their power seriously.

Jason Salzman, co-founder of the website RepentantNaderVoter.com, agrees with Getz that vote swapping is a bad idea, but for quite different reasons.

Back in 2000, Salzman supported Nader. He now regrets that decision, believing his support helped cost Gore the election. This year, his priority is to make sure George W. Bush does not get re-elected, and he believes the best way to do that is to cast a vote for Kerry.

"Any support for Nader legitimizes his candidacy and might convince others in swing states and elsewhere to vote for him," he said. "Nader should be isolated, like a brilliant homeless guy ranting on a dirty street corner, with no support of any kind."